File talk:Trip Tucker, 2151.jpg
Can somebody help me get the revised (non-purple) version to load properly? User:WehrWolf :Refresh your screen with the F5 key. --Alan del Beccio 21:33, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC) Revert For the record, takes place in 2152, not 2151. --From Andoria with Love 05:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) :the intent here was to make all of the character images uniform in size and type. curious as to why they were reverted at all. Deevolution 06:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC) ::Why is the intent to make all the character images the same size and type?? Some of these are supposed to be Publicity shots, not extreme close ups that give almost no information. I've actually noticed this over the past couple days; is it just me, (it may be) or does it seem like you've uploaded over the same couple pictures with new pictures just about every day this week? Is there a method to this madness?- AJ Halliwell 06:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC) :that's an exageration, but yeah i have attempted to make the images more uniform over the last few days. it was difficult, however, to find appropriate publicity images because they're not as abundant on the internet as they used to be. i felt however, that, since some of the primary characters on here had screen caps as their primary images, that i would simply replace the ENT characters images, so they'd work together. it looked sloppy as it was. also, as the promo images had never been seen on screen, should they even count? the madness was, i guess, in simply attempting to improve the appearance of the articles. i hadn't noticed tucker's crows feet. Deevolution 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC) As I explained above (maybe not too well), the image was from "Shockwave", which took place in 2151. The image is labeled as "CharlesTripTucker2151". --From Andoria with Love 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) As long as they are of good quality, I don't see a problem with using promotional images. No offense to Deevolution, but some of the images replacing the promo images aren't the best of quality, especially in comparison with the previous images. If you find an image you think would be more suitable for an article, that's fine, but to upload tons of new images for the sake of matching sizes, angles, shots and what-not isn't really the way to go. Not that we don't apreciate the attempt to better the articles, of course. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC) :What he said. (But with a little more attitude, had a long day.) - AJ Halliwell 06:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC) ::your unnecessary "attitude" is much appreciated. Deevolution 06:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and reverted this again. I'm sorry, Deevolution, but your consistency scheme just isn't working out; the table on Tucker's page looked really bad with all those close-up mug shots. --From Andoria with Love 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC) :*i think the edits you made are sloppy. and your moderation is taking the fun out of what is supposed to be a collaborative website. Deevolution 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Your opinion has been noted, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, there are at least three others – including myself – who disagree with you. The huge, close-up images placed in the tables were too long, making the sidebar too big, cluttering the page. I did not just simply revert all the edits because I didn't like them, I asked others first on MA and at the IRC channel. That's where the collaborative effort came in. Having said that, I wish you good night. (Or good morning/good afternoon/good evening, depending on where in the world you reside). --From Andoria with Love 10:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)